Qantas Boeing 747 Stranded At Suvarnabhumi After Mid-Air Engine Shut Down

[jimbeam1]

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

i read a book they know exactly how much fuel to fill in the tank(s).

and calculate the extra to fly around when the weather is not permitted or else.

don't know in details.

fuel = distance + extra is the formula

There's got to be some weight in that theory somewhere.

yep.......... Payboy i think you are correct.

I don't really know much... I just read a book ... a pilot said he need to calculate the fuel

i think you know the meaning of 7=? 4=Engines 7=?

what are they? Please

Ok I'm going to fall for it. What are they?

jb1

[Stjohnm]

Nice photo of a 737 with that story.

At least they got the airline right

[MaiChai]

The Thais never land a plane at Bangkok when there is a thunderstorm. I guess the bad press is too much. I remember one time circling over the sea outside Bangkok; there were loads of planes doing the same. When we landed it was fine; but lots of water on the tarmac.

[theanimaster]

Only a matter of time before Qantas rules that it's really their PILOTS that are too expensive... Then they'll be turning to the good ol' MS FSX and X-Plane forums for new aspiring captains....

[dunkin2012]

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

i read a book they know exactly how much fuel to fill in the tank(s).

and calculate the extra to fly around when the weather is not permitted or else.

don't know in details.

fuel = distance + extra is the formula

There's got to be some weight in that theory somewhere.

yep.......... Payboy i think you are correct.

I don't really know much... I just read a book ... a pilot said he need to calculate the fuel

i think you know the meaning of 7=? 4=Engines 7=?

what are they? Please

Ok I'm going to fall for it. What are they?

jb1

nope I don't know ........sorry ...

i thought Payboy knows cos' he knew 4=Engines.

so the first 7 and the last 7 i also thought he knows..

Edited May 20, 2011 by dunkin2012

[sydneyjed]

They'd probably rename/brand as Qanstar,as they've managed this far to pull the wool over half of Australia until now...One reckons it's the best international airline in the world and the other the best budget airline...both couldn't be further from the truth as one thing for certain is they are the best 'self opinionated' airline in the world winning hands down!!

And they are on about outsourcing even more maintenance overseas from Australia according to reports.....Qantas are trying every trick in the book to protect their bottom line with 3 fuel surcharge hikes in record time to justify their high fares!!Their onboard service is a reflection of overall moral right now....no one cares a 'flying red rats'!

And just imagine it if the dollar wasn't doing so well.

[jimbeam1]

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

i read a book they know exactly how much fuel to fill in the tank(s).

and calculate the extra to fly around when the weather is not permitted or else.

don't know in details.

fuel = distance + extra is the formula

yep.......... Payboy i think you are correct.

I don't really know much... I just read a book ... a pilot said he need to calculate the fuel

i think you know the meaning of 7=? 4=Engines 7=?

what are they? Please

Ok I'm going to fall for it. What are they?

jb1

nope I don't know ........sorry ...

i thought Payboy knows cos' he knew 4=Engines.

so the first 7 and the last 7 i also thought he knows..

Ok. I thought I was letting myself in far something there.

jb1

[dunkin2012]

some strange stories about Qantas

Qantas security manager sacked

qantas1

qantas2

Edited May 20, 2011 by dunkin2012

[TechnikaIII]

Plus it is not Qantas but QANTAS.

Does Qantas know that? These are direct quotes from its own website -

"Imagine travelling in your own private Qantas 747 to explore the great icons of Asia and Africa"

"Qantas are now the only airline to fly directly from Australia to a United States port beyond the West Coast"

"Qantas Classic Award flights to various domestic destinations"

"+Indicates Qantas Frequent Flyer points apply"

It's probably that he has "QANTAS" tatooed in capitals on his MEMBERship

[ginjag]

The airplane body has nothing to do with it its the engines Rolls Royce seem to be going thru a bad patch. The airplanes have been airbus and now a boing.

Good old English quality fly 1 hour, 10 hours in the shop.

What a stupid thing to say. The Airbus engines were relatively new, this 747 would have been years old with many engine changes since new.

And why was this "stupid?" Moe555 pointed out that the airframe had nothing to do with this but rather the Rolls Royce engine. And do you really know just how old this 747 is? Did you check up on Qantas purchases of 747's? It could have been one delivered in 2009, for example.

And it was a Rolls Royce engine which blew up in flight last year on a Qantas A380.

I don't think his post was "stupid" at all.

Having a good dig at U.K. are we ??(Rolls Royce). Fine if you actually think they are bad engines, so name better jet engines equiv-to this one. Don't say Prat and Whitney--or general electric please, have a look at their safety records.

It WAS a stupid remark about English Quality. Where are you from, does your country make aero engines????

[RickBradford]

This whole perception of QANTAS having an impeccible safety record is nonsense.

Well. yes and no. They've dinged a few here or there, but I think their claim that no QF passenger has been killed in an accident (in the jet era, anyway) stands good.

I do know that their pilots are the most carefully trained and closely screened workers imaginable -- if something goes wrong with the machine I would much rather have a Qantas pilot up at the pointy end who has been trained to deal with failures umpteen times in their simulator (known to some pilots as the Orgasmatron) than some gun ex-airforce jockey who fancies a salary hike with the latest budget carrier.

The ideal airline has Qatar Airways planes, Qantas pilots, SQ hosties, LH check-in staff, Swiss food and drink and PIA prices.

[Parker1973]

It is not a question of risking running out of fuel mid air. It is about unjustified surplus reserves of fuel. The main problem is that there may be a necessary unscheduled stop on route for refueling which is very expensive for the airline. It is not a question of heightening the risk of running out of fuel mid air with a load of passengers on board. Even from a purely economic point of view this would be an absurd risk to take. That pilots are never reprimanded for over fueling, but certainly would be if they were caught under fueling, if you want to protect your own ass, then always fly over fueled. It would then be justified for any airline to make some subtle point to pilots that they are perhaps wasting resources and money by flying over fueling. I don't think it is a safety issue at all.

"running low on fuel"

dam_n ! how cheap can u be ?

note to self ; continue NOT to fly QA

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

The more fuel onboard,the heavier the aircraft,the heavier the aircraft,the more fuel it burns,hence why airlines want to upload the minimum amount of fuel necessary for the journey,plus allowing for holding,possible divert etc....

Edited May 20, 2011 by Parker1973

[Acemaker]

As far as i am aware Quaint Ass is owned or in close partnership with British Airways has been for a few years now, although B.A. has nothing to do with their Maintenance.

[newtronbom]

The airplane body has nothing to do with it its the engines Rolls Royce seem to be going thru a bad patch. The airplanes have been airbus and now a boing.

Good old English quality fly 1 hour, 10 hours in the shop.

Better 10 hours in the shop, than 10 meters under the tarmac mate. Flying is still by far the safest way to travel any distance. Can well understand them wanting to limit the carrying of "unnecessary" fuel though, as it is very heavy, hence expensive to haul around if not needed. Can't see any airline wanting to risk a crash or even a serious diversion and the "loss of faith/business" because of a lack of fuel(being too tight-assed) either, as it would ruin them totally, so safety should, as it has up to now, keep it sane. Lets hope it stays that way.

[sniffdog]

These engine problems are not new. I personally experienced such a failure on the way from Bangkok to Amsterdam 20 years ago and we were directed to Athens for a full day stopover in a cold unused hotel.

[RickBradford]

These engine problems are not new. I personally experienced such a failure on the way from Bangkok to Amsterdam 20 years ago and we were directed to Athens for a full day stopover in a cold unused hotel.

Aaaww, you should have gone outside into the sunshine and had something to eat and drink.

[jimbeam1]

It is not a question of risking running out of fuel mid air. It is about unjustified surplus reserves of fuel. The main problem is that there may be a necessary unscheduled stop on route for refueling which is very expensive for the airline. It is not a question of heightening the risk of running out of fuel mid air with a load of passengers on board. Even from a purely economic point of view this would be an absurd risk to take. That pilots are never reprimanded for over fueling, but certainly would be if they were caught under fueling, if you want to protect your own ass, then always fly over fueled. It would then be justified for any airline to make some subtle point to pilots that they are perhaps wasting resources and money by flying over fueling. I don't think it is a safety issue at all.

"running low on fuel"

dam_n ! how cheap can u be ?

note to self ; continue NOT to fly QA

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

The more fuel onboard,the heavier the aircraft,the heavier the aircraft,the more fuel it burns,hence why airlines want to upload the minimum amount of fuel necessary for the journey,plus allowing for holding,possible divert etc....

Yes totally agree. So how much to allow for holding (how long) or poss divert or two or three?

That is why I said the Airline should specify how much fuel is necessary for any specific route.

[rakman]

Plus it is not Qantas but QANTAS.

Does Qantas know that? These are direct quotes from its own website -

"Imagine travelling in your own private Qantas 747 to explore the great icons of Asia and Africa"

"Qantas are now the only airline to fly directly from Australia to a United States port beyond the West Coast"

"Qantas Classic Award flights to various domestic destinations"

"+Indicates Qantas Frequent Flyer points apply"

Queers

And

Nancys

Trained

As

Stewards

QANTAS Easy!!

For the record, QANTAS is Queensland And Northern Territories Air Service.

[Estrada]

This attitude is more like that which we would expect from a budget airline, not a flagship carrier.

What attitude is that?

Have a bunch of crashes as Thai have done and then claim not to have had any.

As a shareholder in QANTAS you want me to suggest that they have a few crashs, kill a few people ??

Plus it is not Qantas but QANTAS.

Looks like you shot yourself in the foot by flapping your gums too soon before engaging brain. As a shareholder you should know that the name style was changed from QANTAS to Qantas some time ago. So before you berate others and get on your high horse and flame us, just because you are a shareholder, make sure of your facts first:

Qantas Airways Limited is the flag carrier of Australia. The name was originally "QANTAS", an acronym/initialism for "Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services". Nicknamed "The Flying Kangaroo", the airline is based in Sydney, with its main hub at Sydney Airport. It is Australia's largest airline, and the second oldest in the world.[4] Qantas headquarters are located in the Qantas Centre in the Mascot suburb of the City of Botany Bay, Sydney, New South Wales. (Wikipedia)

Edited May 20, 2011 by Estrada

[rakman]

When a 747 loses an engine mid-flight, it is automatically downgraded to a 737.

and who knows the meaning of 7*7?

From this link:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0134.shtml

It was just a sexy number scheme that started with the 707 and stuck. the middle digit is just a continuing model number, not an indication of number of engines.

707 first Boeing jet

717 (renumbered MD-80 after Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas)

727 3 engines in tail

737 2 under wing engines, very popular jet

747 first "heavy" aircraft, first flew 1969, new 747-8i coming soon)

757 Twin engine 707 "replacement"

767 Wide body mid distance airliner

777 Big wide body international (more economical than 4 engines)

787 New advanced composite mid to long distance airliner

797 Not official, possible 737 replacement

2707 1970's proposed supersonic airliner (never built)

Hope this helps..

[notime]

Plus it is not Qantas but QANTAS.

Does Qantas know that? These are direct quotes from its own website -

"Imagine travelling in your own private Qantas 747 to explore the great icons of Asia and Africa"

"Qantas are now the only airline to fly directly from Australia to a United States port beyond the West Coast"

"Qantas Classic Award flights to various domestic destinations"

"+Indicates Qantas Frequent Flyer points apply"

Queers

And

Nancys

Trained

As

Stewards

QANTAS Easy!!

For the record, QANTAS is Queensland And Northern Territories Air Service.

QANTAS = Queers And Nymphomaniacs Traveling Across Sky ... and it's so very true! :-)

By hey, buzz off QANTAS .. it's one of the great airlines and although may not be the cheapest or offering the greatest service it always makes me feel very safe to fly with. They were the first one I flown with that introduced flight path monitoring for passengers that helped to be informed about what the plane was doing and to relax. The pilots are great, the staff welcoming and well trained and the safety standards transparent and being reinforced unlike many other airlines. All airlines have maintenance problems, mishaps, cost-cutting measures because of being commercial enterprises. But if I am to trust some, I trust likes of QANTAS, Lufthansa, BA, Singapore Airlines or Cathy Pacific a bit more than others.

[hawksway]

What a load of verbal garbage we are seeing on this issue. Suddenly we have lots of experts around. Wow Qantas needs people like that.

I've flown Qantas and British Airways lots of times and from close frelationships can say that neither airline flies on a shoestring or takes chances with the safety of their passengers and neither would Rolls Royce. Their safety records are no accident. The media report contradicts itself. On the one hand it say the Captain was forced to shut down the engine and on the other that the Captain did this as a precaution.

There is nothing in the article to say what will happen next but likely scenarios are that all the Passengers will have been put into first class hotels with meals and expenses met by Qantas. Not the couldn 't care less approach of Thai when they refused to help their Passengers grounded by the Icelandic Volcanic Dust. Only diplomatic pressure on the Thai Government got them back in the air. Qantas are likely to do an engine change if they have one in Singapore or else may ferry one up from Sydney.

The confidence that the General Public have in Qantas speaks for itself. Try and get a seat on the Kangaroo Route. They are often fully booked for days ahead.

[swerver]

This attitude is more like that which we would expect from a budget airline, not a flagship carrier.

What attitude is that?

Have a bunch of crashes as Thai have done and then claim not to have had any.

As a shareholder in QANTAS you want me to suggest that they have a few crashs, kill a few people ??

Plus it is not Qantas but QANTAS.

Correct it is QANTAS and it means:

Queensland

And

Nothern

Territory

Air

Service

[TechnikaIII]

At take off, fully loaded, when maximum power is needed, a 747 is only using at the most about 40% of the power available. It could actually have 2 engines fail or drop off and keep going. They are amazing aircraft, and in original condition are one of the safest craft in the skies. Most problems occur with rebuilds and when repairs are made.

The Qantas flight turned around as a precautionary measure, and should be no cause for alarm.

[elliss]

yeah seems the airline with the NO CASH record is making sure it keeps it that way...

:jap:

[FOODLOVER]

An Australian airplane with a problem down under. Krikey!

[swerver]

Once again shoddy reporting. The issue of fuel economy and a mid-air engine 'incident' are not related. Why conflate the issues? Now if Qantas are found to be taking short-cuts on maintenance well that is a more serious issue though given their impeccable safety record I suspect not.

How much fuel required for the flight?

In my early days of flying the A and B Morse signals in combination with the magnetic compass, 10,000 Ft. altitude was very high causing a lot of flying in and out of the clouds and dodging Thunderheads.

Fuel required for the flight: Civil Aviation requirement:

• Departure to Destination to Alternate plus 1½ Hour at cruise.

To my knowledge this rule has never been rescinded and/or changed.

Today flights are at FL-41 – FL-42 (40,000 + Ft.) with worldwide weather forecasting constantly updated 24/7 and computer flight planning the old fuel requirement nobody seems to bother with anymore because on a 4-jetengine airplane the amount of extra fuel – to alternate plus1½ Hour at cruise - amounts to a 18-wheel tank truck load of nonrevenue earning load. Airlines are in the business of hauling revenue paying passengers and/or cargo, not flying tankers.

As for the QANTAS AB running short of fuel there seem to be something amiss in the weather forecasting of its flight before departure. Of course there are always exceptions, and this case maybe an exception of some unusual weather phenomenon all of a sudden appearing in the flight path/altitude. But no problem, just divert to Adelaide, put in some more fuel, and then on to destination. Nothing to get exited about. Captain/Copilot showed they were doing their job and were right on top of the situation developing and took care of it.

Of course then there is the case of the Canadian Airliner with the AB Aircraft fuel system in Liters and the tank truck metering in US Gallons. Captain/Copilot not doing their job of checking fuel load figures when accepting the aircraft for flight and during flight monitoring systems and so ran the tanks DRY and crash-landed the aircraft in a large field. Luckily for everybody, nobody got injured.

I do not fly anymore as a passenger; it annoys my relatives because I do not come visit in my retirement years. I’m not afraid to die, but I do not want to get mangled up and have to live as an invalid during the remainder of my years here on mother earth through some cowboy on the flight deck not doing for what he is paid for. Like these two guys on the flight deck of the Canadian Airliner running out of fuel.

[gregb]

Fuel required for the flight: Civil Aviation requirement:

• Departure to Destination to Alternate plus 1½ Hour at cruise.

To my knowledge this rule has never been rescinded and/or changed.

At least in the states, the requirement for all domestic, IFR flights is enough fuel for taxi, takeoff, flying to your destination, executing a missed approach, flying to your alternate, and then 45 minutes extra at normal cruise.

For international flights, the contingency fuel was typically specified as 10%, rather than number of minutes, however recently the FAA has decided to allow each airline more latitude in determining for themselves the contingency fuel that is merited on individual routes. Not sure if there is an actual ICAO standard for international flights as I never flew internationally. It may very well vary based on the destination country.

[tropo]

yeah seems the airline with the NO CRASH record is making sure it keeps it that way...

Every time I hear of an incident with Qantas it brings back memories of their "safest airline in the world" campaign several years back. They certainly were game tempting fate with such statements.

[meelousee]

Back to sea travel screw the airlines.

I am tired of getting ripped off, ruffed up, ignored and treated like a pet they own. :jap: